Posted
by
samzenpus
on Wednesday January 20, 2010 @11:18PM
from the back-by-popular-demand dept.

ImNotARealPerson writes "Scientists in Italy are hoping to breed back from extinction the mighty auroch, a bovine species which has been extinct since 1627. The auroch weighed 2,200 pounds (1000kg) and its shoulders stood at 6'6". The beasts once roamed most of Asia and northern Africa. The animal was depicted in cave paintings and Julius Caesar described it as being a little less in size than an elephant. A member of the Consortium for Experimental Biotechnology suggests that 99% of the auroch's DNA can be recreated from genetic material found in surviving bone material. Wikipedia mentions that researchers in Poland are working on the same problem."

Bison are from the genus Bison. Buffalo are apparently from the geni Syncerus (African buffalo) or Bubalus (water buffalo and its smaller cousins). But since they are all from the Bovinae subfamily and "buffalo" includes more than one genus, I personally don't see why it's so incorrect to refer to the bison as the American buffalo.

If they're considering the possibility of the Auroch being used for food (I guess it was before if it was hunted so much), it's fair to ask what advantages it might have over modern cattle.Specifically I'm wondering about the carbon footprint per pound of meat, milk etc.

Can industry be trusted to act responsibly? I was shocked to learn how far a large cattle operation in California went to alter what was being taught (or wasn't) at a University well know for Agriculture.

TFS says "The auroch weighed 2,200 pounds (1000kg) and its shoulders stood at 6'6". The beasts once roamed most of Asia and northern Africa. The animal was depicted in cave paintings and Julius Caesar described it as being a little less in size than an elephant."

Some modern horses weigh over a ton (shire horse is up to 1½ ton, brabant horse average over 1 ton, clydesdale horses typically about 1 ton), bulls in some breeds of cattle can be up to 1½ tons, and the American Bison occasionally exceeds a ton also. These animals would hardly be described as just a little less than an elephant in size, so we're looking at a certain amount of exaggeration or hoopla in TFS and TFA.

BTW, the record weight for a bull is 1740 kg, so the Auroch hardly merits being referred to as a "giant"

In fact in Caesar's time there was a third kind - the North African elephant. These were used in war, most famously by Hannibal and so that's probably the sort he was familiar with. They were pretty small, as elephants go.

Oh, great.... now they'll have to bring back the North African elephant to validate this claim. Then there's the whole "mice scare elephants" wisdom, which some researchers say was only true with North African elephants and Eastern Egyptian mice.

In fact in Caesar's time there was a third kind - the North African elephant.

now they'll have to bring back the North African elephant to validate this claim. Then there's the whole "mice scare elephants" wisdom, which some researchers say was only true with North African elephants and Eastern Egyptian mice.

At which point, to get rid of the extinct Eastern Egyptian mice, they'll have to bring back the extinct European Lion, and slightly older Smilodon (saber-toothed cat).

And to get rid of them, they'll have to save from extinction the nearly-extinct Gorillas.

And to get rid of these, the scientist will have to bring back the Ice-Age winters, so the Gorilla freezes to death.

The problem is that people get given simplistic data and forget their history.

So far we "know" of four currently living species based on DNA analysis; more may be recognized as the DNA analysis of the various groups is ongoing.

There's the "Asian Elephant", currently separated into three subspecies (Sri Lankan, Sumatran, and Mainland/Indian) and the recently-acknowledged full species, the Borneo Pygmy elephant (which actually is sized similar to the extinct species that made up the bulk of Hannibal's herd). There's also the possibility that the Laotian populations are a true subspecies.

Then there's the "African Elephant", which is actually two species (African Forest Elephant and African Bush Elephant). The African Pygmy Elephant (Loxodonta pumilio or Loxodonta fransseni) is currently considered a "morph", but might be a subspecies or full species, again pending research and time for the populations to continue diverging.

None of these are what the Romans were used to, however. The Romans used the North African Elephant (Loxodonta africana pharaoensis), sometimes considered a subspecies and sometimes a full species, and the Syrian Elephant (Elephas maximus asurus, sometimes referred to as mere Asian Elephants, sometimes considered a subspecies, sometimes considered a full species). Both of the lines of what the Romans used are considered extinct today. There are also a number of other extinct Elephant lines that had contact with people: Elephas maximus rubridens aka the Chinese Elephant, a number of "Pygmy" elephant species that shrank due to island habitats, several species of the subgenus Paleoloxodon (including the Mediterranean Dwarf elephants, skulls of which found on Cyprus, Crete, and Sicily could have given rise to the idea of the "Cyclops")...

I'm amazed that nobody has commented that one of the beasties is (or was) an AUROCHS, not an "auroch". Two of 'em would be auroches or aurochsen. Talking about an "auroch" is like talking about a Chinee or Portugee. More to the point, it would be like talking about "ock" as the singular of oxen, since "ox" is the second syllable of aurochs.

Actually, being delicious may make them go from being extict->recreated->common. Look at the mighty buffalo of the midwest. They were on the edge of extiction until they were commercially marketed, which made it viable to raise them as livestock, which made their numbers swell. In many parts of central USA you can buy buffalo meat, which many say is very lean and good tasting.

They were on the edge of extiction until they were commercially marketed,

Er, not quite. They were on the verge of extinction because of the wholesale slaughter for their hides due in large part to poachers as well as the railroads who wanted to use the land. Their meat was rarely used by the white man.

And yet their numbers were still very low and their population confined to a single area until they were commercially marketed for their meat. Reading comprehension is a terrible thing to waste.

See, given that our genetic similarity so many known animals is at least 95%, would 99% of the dna really be enough to recreate the animal? It appears as though small differences (1% of a very large number of genes is a large number of genes) are sufficient to make a new species, or, most likely, a non-functioning animal.

It's not inconceivable that the differences between the missing 1% and that 1% taken from domestic cattle would lead a species which would otherwise integrate with its habitat to become invasive or destructive. It's also not inconceivable that it would weaken the species and lead to its eventual re-extinction. It's also not inconceivable that there's all sorts of other possibilities no one will consider before doing it.

It's a fucking cow, for chrissakes, and a big one. We're not talking weirdo Eurasian frogs in or some strange aquatic algae. At worst it might be competition for any other Eurasian wild bovines (not that there are a lot of those left anywhere). But this beasty has only been extinct about 400 or 500 years, and is close enough to megafauna that I doubt anything has really filled its shoes, except for all the domestic animals we've put there.

Presumably, it depends on which 99% they've recovered. If it includes all or most of the genes that make an aurochs an aurochs rather than Bessie, they're good to go.

Also, TFA says they're not trying to create an aurochs genome de novo. They're carefully breeding modern cattle to try to get a genome that's as close as possible to the reconstructed aurochs genome. So the intermediate generations may not be aurochs, exactly, but they won't be nonviable; they'll just be different breeds of cow.

The Aurochs is extinct there is no DNA to compare to, what you will get is yet another variant of Heck Cattle, i.e. another breed of cattle

You cannot "breed back" to an extinct species, what you will get at best is an animal similar in most respects to the original, but since the original died out so long ago there is very little information left about it....

Guesswork plus a discredited theory does not equal resurrection of an extinct species

More to the point, even if they can the question is how much DNA they can salvage from different individual members of the species.

The problem with ressurecting a species with cloning and DNA techniques like this is not simply a case of bringing one animal back, but that you need to bring multiple animals back all from different recovered DNA sources.

The reason for this is because creating clones from a single individual will leave you with a population without any real genetic variability and so you will e

A bit offtopic, I know, but can we please stop referring to everyone and everything as scientists? If you need better terms, try "Geneticists" or "Breeders" or "Italians." Saying that Scientists are going to do it is an overused catch-all phrase that doesn't actually add any information. What, could it have been that Creationists were going to breed the auroch from extinction? Linguists? Liberal arts majors?

And consider: that was a scientist talking to a science journalist with a notebook and pencil in hand. This kind of mean-girl talk is a lot more common when they don't think the public is talking. Ever see the actual comments scientists

If their arguments are sound, then they should be believed. If they simply point to the stars - well that is not a sound argument. The point is to remove the person from the claim, and focus on the reasons for the claim.

Exactly. The person and his claims should be evaluated independently. You shouldn't disbelieve everything an astrologer says just because he's an astrologer, nor should you believe everything that a whale biologist [theinfosphere.org] says just because he's a whale biologist.

A bit offtopic, I know, but can we please stop referring to everyone and everything as scientists?

Are you saying that anyone who does experimentation with DNA is thereby a scientist? I would disagree.

I don't think anybody *is* referring to everyone and everything as scientists. I think they only do it when the people doing whatever are actually connected to a university, or receive government funding for research. What it means is that the people who are doing this have some social legitimacy in so doing; it's not just a guy in his back yard doing DNA splicing.

But none of those terms so readily prepare my brain to imagine a team of white-coated madmen performing reckless experiments on the fringes of modern technological capability. When I hear "scientists" I get excited like that.

What, could it have been that Creationists were going to breed the auroch from extinction?

Well, no, Creationists pray for it, and get one delivered to them from heavens right there and then.

In any case, I think that "scientists do $something_awesome" is a traditional, respected, and still wonderful meme of its own. It reinforces the notion that so many cool things that we have, we owe to science; which just happens to be something well worthy reminding about these days.

I'm under the impression that projects like this are generally taken on by cross-disciplinary teams, scientists is a general term that works nicely for a term that includes geneticists, biologists, experimental/rigorous breeders, etc.

I mean, it's clear that the people undertaking this project are "doing science", it's hard to say for sure (especially as an uninformed reporter) exactly what kind of scientists are doing the work.

Scientists report that scientists are doing studies on monkeys to see if monkeys would make good scientists. It's not all good news though, some scientists may be out of a job. Unless, of course, they happen to be monkeys.

A 30min radio offering via bbc iplayer http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00hc946/b00hc6xc/Jon_Ronson_and_the_Quest_for_the_Aryan_Cow/ [bbc.co.uk] (runs until 9:32pm Thursday 21st January 2010 ) covers the trip to Munich Zoo by John Ronson. "Jon Ronson investigates the controversial story of the work of Lutz Heck, the director of Berlin Zoo who attempted to resurrect several pure-blooded, extinct animal species as part of the Nazi programme to control the genetic destiny of all creation.
He visits Munich Zoo, which proudly advertises its 'formerly extinct aurochs' - a type of large and powerful cow - but does not refer to the fact that behind this apparent triumph lies the story of Heck's collusion with Goering's aspiration to replace Europe's 'racially degenerate' wildlife and plant life with pure, 'noble' and extinct species."

This is great and all, but it's also something that the Nazis were doing before WWII - there are quite a lot of these Heck cattle still around. There was even a radio programme on the BBC about it a week or so ago.

The main difference, I think -- besides the fact that the Nazis were motivated by loony ideology and the modern researchers, presumably, are motivated by scientific curiosity -- is that the Hecks could only breed for phenotype, while the groups currently working on the problem are breeding for genotype. A project like this is really impossible without modern DNA sequencing technology.

That being said, it would be interesting to know how close the Hecks got. The Wiki article doesn't mention if there's been any comparison of the Heck genome to the reconstructed aurochs genome; I'd like to know the results of such a study.

It's also amusing to speculate what would have happened if sequencing had been available back then. Der Fuehrer's apoplexy upon learning that an awful lot of the Jews and Slavs he was bent on exterminating were genetically indistinguishable from the general German population would have been a site to behold.

Anyway, there are people that will believe something despite being presented with facts that show something contrary. Hitler was known to be pretty irrational. He didn't like that Jesse Owens showed up his ideologies, and it still didn't stop him from continuing to cling to those ideologies.

Why is it that every time something neat in biology comes up, the first thing everyone says is 'What could possibly go wrong' implying, of course, that something exceptionally negative will come about as a result of it? Jeepers, this thing only died out four centuries ago. They're not going to hunt you down [wikipedia.org] in trained squads.

Toying with life? Do you mean like what we do with vaccines that stop disease, medicines that cure, or plant breeding that feeds the world? Even brewing beer and baking bread could be considered 'toying with life.' No one's saying to be reckless, but you've got to admit toying with life has brought a hell of a lot more benefit than harm.

Jurassic Park was a good movie, but a parable? My arse! Why is it that so many movies have some mad scientists killing people with their crazed experiments, but you never see the movie about people starving to death or succumbing to preventable/curable diseases because the scientists didn't do the research?

What if people like Norman Borlaug or Edward Jenner didn't 'toy with nature?' It wouldn't be a very pretty sight, would it? I for one like it when we toy with life.

As it turns out if you recall the very popular series "Sliders", that explores scenarios where the scientists didn't do that sort of research in alternate earths. Very interesting stuff, we need more of that sort of entertainment, espscially with its emphasis on non violence.

It's ironic that some of the people who rant the loudest against humans "playing God" by choosing to discontinue life-support or terminating a pregnancy have no problems with putting someone on life-support to begin with (defying what would seem a rather obvious decision by "God" that the person is ready to die) or engaging in the most "God-like" act of all: willfully creating a new life. It's not so much that they object to people playing God, rather they object to people making God-like decisions that di

You actually *can* learn something useful in a way from considering the Jurassic Park story. Consider this: the T. rex was awesome, *cool* even. The raptors were terrifying. The little venom spitting dinosaur was the worst.

If you think about it, that's actually a fairly reasonable reaction. Which of the animals would be a potential problem for people if they were reconstructed? The T. rex is huge, easy to spot, and probably needs an enormous geographic range to itself to survive. If a breeding pair escaped, they'd have almost no chance of establishing a stable population, even if people left them alone.

The raptors on the other hand might have a chance. The range for a single T. rex probably would support a good sized band of them. But they probably wouldn't be hard to hunt down. They're still pretty big and would be easy to track down. As formidable as they are, they wouldn't be a match for a squad of human commandos.

It's that little spitting dinosaur that you'd have to look out for. If a breeding pair escaped, they'd be all over the place and you'd never be able to eradicate them.

The smaller an individual organism is and the less resources it requires to maintain itself in breeding condition, the harder it is to eradicate. Insects the the fire ant, the japanese beetle, or the asian tiger mosquito pretty much can't be stopped once they start breeding in a hospitable environment. Microorganisms are the very hardest. Unless they have a very narrow habitat (e.g. pathogens that infect humans only), you can't even begin to contain their geographic spread; even then it's hard.

In any case, if you read the book, the real screwups werent't he scientists. They were the systems engineers who relied too much on the resumptions in the requirements spec.

I'm guessing their farts contain a surprising amount of methane and they singlehandedly double the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, bringing forth the apocalypse while unassumingly chewing grass in the fields.

I'm more concerned that these biologists will implement a Tron-inspired 3D file browser that pre-teen female Unix haxors will know how to use. Other than that, I'm ready to buy my tickets to Medieval Park.

Jurassic Park is just one example of many. People have countless idiotic notions about "cloning" that have nothing to do with Chrichton's fiction (e.g. it'll lead to overpopulation, a clone will know everything the original does). There's a whole lot of Hollywood (and just plain ignorance about biology) to blame.

The dodo (Raphus cucullatus) was a flightless bird endemic to the Indian Ocean island of Mauritius. Related to pigeons and doves, it stood about a meter (3 feet) tall, weighing about 20 kilograms (44 lb), living on fruit and nesting on the ground.

...

The first known descriptions of the bird were made by the Dutch. They called the Mauritius bird the walghvogel ("wallow bird" or "loathsome bird") in reference to its taste. Although many later writings say that the meat tasted bad, the early journals only say that the meat was tough but good, though not as good as the abundantly available pigeons.

It would be interesting to see, but I don't think any good would come out of it. Doubly so in New York...

Have these scientists contemplated what could happen if these created creatures escape into the wild breeding amongst themselves and/or other similar species.

Whole ecosystems can be destroyed by introducing one creature into them.

You know, this argument is getting old for me. Anything that could progress human knowledge is looked down on anymore with an excuse like this one. I for one want to see real scientific advancement. I want genetic research on ALL levels. Lets bring back species that was destroyed by man, lets cure cancer, lets do SOMETHING.

A day will come when advancements in medicine/science will be had and everyone will then wonder why we waited so long.

At the risk of being serious, to get a pig labeled "kosher", you'd have to breed/DNA-splice out the characteristics that put it on the "traif" list to begin with, to the point it's really no longer a pig. Specifically you'd need a pig with multiple stomachs so it can chew cud, or a pig with different feet.

I seem to recall reading an article a few years back about a pig that scientists believed was in the middle of evolving just those traits. As someone who keeps kosher, I'm looking forward to eating my kosher bacon.... in a few million years.